Wednesday, February 20, 2008

The "Incident" at Bruges: Word from "Victim"'s Brother and Some Lessons to be Learned

People have posted comments on the Bruges story in different places on this blog. For those of you who have missed it click here. [Be sure to click on the comments at each post, especially at "About the Blog."]

[Here's a quick summary: Marc Kalmann, who describes himself as a Professor and says he was born in Auschwitz 3 days before it was liberated, says he was in Bruges and tried to have a cup of coffee in a famous cafe on the square. When the waiter saw his kippah he threw him out and said "we don't serve Jews here." Sometime later Kalmann went to the police to report the incident and they would not take a report in English. The story is all over the internet.]

This morning I received the following email from someone who says he is Mr. Kalmann's brother. I believe it is legitimate because it is loving and yet cautionary about the story at the same time.

It is posted at "About this Blog" and I have cut and pasted it below:

Let me quickly shed some light on Marc Kalmann, my brother. He was born in 1948 in Amsterdam and not in Auschwitz in 1945. He lives in the Netherlands and is fluent in Dutch. He lived in the USA for 22 years and was sometimes employed as a teacher of languages at community colleges. He liked the title professor and has used it since. He tends to believe his own fantasies. I love him but I am concerned that his fantasies take over his world. And through the magic of the Internet it is taking the world by storm. I wanted to set some part of the record straight. I have no knowledge of what did or did not happen at the restaurant in Bruges.

To buttress the brother's comments. See Esther's blog about another incident concerning Mr. Kalmann which seemed to have morphed into an antisemitic charge.

My guess -- and it is only that -- is that Professor Kalmann, as he calls himself, had some incident at this cafe over a cup of coffee [which probably did cost an arm and a leg] and it is possible that some antisemitic crack was made. This morphed into the story that "we don't serve Jews here" and that the Bruges police refused to do anything about it.

What happened at the police station is hard to know. Was there a problem with the filing of the story? [Supposedly the police refused to file the report in English.] Does Kalmann speak Flemish or French? He does speak Dutch. Who knows?


So What Can We Learn from This?

It seems pretty clear that it did not happen as originally reported. Which is a lesson to all those who originally reported this story. Even if they are a Jewish media outlet they are obligated to investigate and not simply take the story as told by the "victim."

Maybe it's because of my work on Holocasut denial, but I feel so strongly that, when it comes to antisemitism and other prejudices, if you embellish the truth or, even worse, make a story up you are doing great damage to those who tell the truth.

How long will it be before they too are dismissed as not being truthful?

Sometimes a story can be a fabrication and sometimes it can be an aggrandizement of the truth , sometimes it can be inflated, and sometimes it can be absolute fact.

It is also worth remembering that:
  • Sometimes a woman or a "minority" can be fired from a job because they are incompetent and not because of racism, sexism, or any other ism.
  • Sometimes a Jew can be attacked because it is a random act of violence and not because they are a Jew.
  • Sometimes a woman or a racial or religious minority member can be passed over for a promotion because there really is someone -- read White (usually Anglo-Saxon) male -- who is far far better qualified.
  • And sometimes these things can happen because there is rampant racism, sexism, and antseimitism alive and well in this world.
It's critically important to know when to make a charge of prejudice and when not. And, in this day and age of the internet, it's even more important to know when to believe what you hear and when to be skeptical and ask more questions.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Sarkozy Debate Roils French Jewish Community

The plan announced by Sarkozy has left the French Jewish community reeling.

JTA and Haaretz [Among Others] Owe Us an Explanation on Supposed Antisemitic Incident in Belgium

Last week I posted a comment about an apparent antisemitic incident in Bruges, Belgium. It reported that an American professor had been thrown out of a famous cafe because he wore a kippah.

To add insult to injury, when he went to the police to report the incident the police refused to take the report in English.

Then serious question began to be raised about exactly what happened. The cafe owner said that this was NOT how the incident proceeded but that there had been a dispute about the cost of the cup of coffee.

I had some questions about the incident and expressed my reservations but still posted it without checking further. My mistake.

Then an energetic correspondent, Dan, began to barrage me with emails which are posted here both at the original story [which is no longer there] and at "About this Blog" suggesting I check further. He was right.

A number of sites, have removed the post. Others including YeshivahWorld News have posted the response of the cafe. The cafe argues that it was about the price of the coffee. If so, then the man could not have been thrown out, since he obviously was served the coffee.

This morning I checked and the original story is all over the internet.

Since both JTA and Haaretz were the prime English language sources for this story, they should be doing some checking and, if not true, issue a retraction.

There are enough real incidents of antisemitism around that we do not need to be reacting to incidents which are not real.

Sarkozy's Thoughtless Plan: continued

Simone Veil, herself a Holocaust survivor and a former President of the European Parliament, has unequivocally condemned Sarkozy's scheme for teaching about the Holocaust.

She told L'Express that "her blood turned to ice" when she heard about this idea. Veil, as honorary chairwoman of honour of the Foundation for the Memory of the Shoah.

This is simply NOT how education is done on any topic, much less one as complex and difficult as the Holocaust.

Sarkozy's response to the criticism has been: "We don't traumatize children by giving them the present of a country's memory."

He seems not to understand that certain presents are appropriate for 10 year old children and certain are not.

Sunday, February 17, 2008

LimmudLA: Bravo




[posted from LAX where I arrived absurdly early for my flight]:

Just left LimmudLA. Great job by an array of volunteers. Good conversation. Good learning. Good spirit. Great people. Bad coffee.

Bravo to all those who made it happen.

If you are in the LA area put it on your calendar for next year.

French Pesident Sarkozy Gets Involved in Holocaust Education: What a Mess

French President Sarkozy seems to have arbitrarily decided that every child in France should study the story of one of the 11,000 French Jewish children killed during the Holocaust.

Now first let it be stated that the French have a dismal history regarding the Holocaust. When you look at pictures of the roundups in France search for a picture of a German official participating in this shameful act. You won't find one. It was all conducted by French.

For years after the Holocaust France refused to confront this aspect of its collaborationist history. So it should be refreshing to learn of a French leader such as Sarkozy breaking with that tradition and ordering this educational reform.

However from the news stories I have read it seems that this was done without forethought, planning, or consultation. Nor am I at all convincd that this is the best way for a child to fully understnad what happened. Can a child at age 10 really grasp this? I don't think Jewish kids aged 10 should be engaged in such a project. How much more so a French kid....

The announcement was further complicated by the fact thqt Sarkozy 'wrapped his plan in the cloak of religion,' he blamed the wars and violence of the last century on an “absence of God” and calling the Nazi belief in a hierarchy of races “radically incompatible with Judeo-Christian monotheism.”

All that this does is thrust Holocaust education, which must be handled professionally and not politically and certainly not in this haphazard fashion, into a debate not of its own making.

What a mess and what an unnecessary one.

Friday, February 15, 2008

[More Ron Paul] Neo-Nazi LIsted as Paul Delegate

Link repaired Friday 2/15/08 4:47 PST

Adam Holland blogs that a neo-Nazi leader appeared on the Tennessee Republican primary ballot on Ron Paul's slate of delegates.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

[More Politics] Gutter Level Sexism and Other Smear Tactics


This is the front page of the New York Post the day after Obama swept the recent primaries. Women of a certain age will know that "wham bam" comes from "Wham bam, thank you Ma'am," the statement made by a guy after having quick sex with a woman and then standing up and leaving. Simply put the headline says [and pardon my language but this is an accurate translation of the headline]: Hillary got F***Ked.

It's another example of the way in which the press denigrates her as a woman.

Thanks to my friend Myra Weiss for catching this reference. [She saw it on television no less!]

Meanwhile Fox radio commentator Tom Sullivan ran side by side comparisons of a speech by Obama and Adolf Hitler. This is absolutely disgusting. Sullivan thought the whole thing was terribly amusing.

Both these actions should be roundly .condemned.

Which one do you think will be?

Avowed Antisemitic and White Supremacist Professor [Kevin McDonald] Back in the News*

Inside Higher Education has a long article on Kevin McDonald, the California State University Long Beach professor who testified for David Irving [of his own volition and not because of a subpoena] and made such a pathetic impression on the judge and just about everyone else in the courtroom [with the exception of Irving's supporters] is back in the news.

McDonald's performance was so ridiculous that my wonderful and very wise barrister, Richard Rampton, did not even bother to cross examine him.

McDonald's views which are unquestionably antisemitic and racist are an anathema to his colleagues. Yet the university has never condemned them or expressed any criticism of them. For previous posts on McDonald see here. It documented his long association with virulently racist and antisemitic entities.

Last year McDonald was the subject of an in-depth report by the Southern Poverty Law Center under the title Promoting Hate

Ironically the university is hosting a group of scholars, documentary producers, and genocide survivors for the President’s Forum on International Human Rights, which is focused on modern genocides and society’s responsibility to prevent them.

I wonder if McDonald is going to show up. He could be a prime piece of evidence of how hate can be dressed up in academic garb.

*I put McDonald's name in brackets because that is how I think of him, i.e. as a sort of cipher.

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

More on the Italian Posting of Names of Professors

I have just learned from Emanuele Ottolenghi, the Executive Director of the Transatlantic Institute and one of the people whose name and affiliation was posted on the Italian website, that most of the 162 names on the list were not names of Jewish people.

He described many of them as "very pious Catholics," who were appalled by the notion of a boycott of Jewish academics.

But these are distinctions which are lost on antisemites.

More Disturbing News from the European Scene: Jewish Tourist Ejected from Brussels Cafe for Being Jewish

Updated: 2/18-19
Story removed because it seems that this incident did not happen as originally reported. I had some doubts and had written,
"If this report is accurate, then it is extremely disturbing. " Then later in the post I wrote, "the Belgium incident, if it happened as reported, occurred in a well known and prestigious place."

Thanks to a very energetic correspondent, Dan, who sent me this information. For more of Dan's legwork go to "About this Blog" under my picture above or click here. Quite impressive on his part. I should have followed up on my suspicions. I am glad he did.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

One of the Italian Professors shares her feelings about being listed

In the previous post I reported how 150 [actually it's 162] professors had been listed on a neo-Nazi website. Friends of mine received the following letter from one of them. It personalizes what, otherwise, might just be a scary news story.

[The good news, of course, is that the Italian minister of higher education has denounced the list. In his statement he recalled the 1938 law which barred Jews from teaching at Italian universities.]

Donatella Ester Di Cesare is a professor of philosophy at Università di Roma "Sapienza." Last semester she was a visiting professor at Penn State University. For more on her work and publications you can visit her bi-lingual website www.donadice.com

She asks for a ' word" or "gesture" of solidarity. Her email is donaester@libero.it

A LETTER FROM ITALY

Dear students, dear colleagues, dear friends,

Many of you, in Italy and abroad, might already know that yesterday in a neo-Nazi blog, appeared on the Web site “il cannocchiale”, has been published a list of Jewish professors labelled as “Jewish lobby” that would monopolize Italian universities. The names in the list are about 160 (some are not Jews). The Web site has been shut down yesterday by the Italian Postal Police under initiative of the Minister of Interior Amado. At the same time, the Minister of University and Research has self-represented.

The professors stigmatized in the list are accused of being Jews, of being Zionists, of being philo-Israeli, of living in Italy while obeying, instead, to a “sovranational community”, namely Israel, and hence of corrupting young people. The list was surrounded by slogans inciting to boycott Israel, but also to “boycott the Jewish community”. The distance is after all short.

I would have never thought to see my name in a list like that, or rather I would have never imagined to see a suchlike list in my life, and let alone in Italy. For a while I thought I was reading a report of the 30’s. But next to mine there were many other names, of friends and of colleagues I know.

Unfortunately the political and cultural climate in Italy has already degenerated quite a long time ago. For those who live abroad this is hardly presumable. All that went with the controversies around the Turin International Book Fair, around the “boycott of Israel”, invited to take part in it on the occasion of the anniversary of the foundation of the state of Israel, is a clear sign.

The new anti-Semitism comes from afar but, precisely, is rather new. It nourishes itself on the Middle East Conflict, it sternly profits from the tragedy of two peoples. Who goes along with the boycott of Israel has to take his responsibilities, has to be conscious of the effects it produces.

The hate once directed against Jews is now addressed against the state of Israel, which has become the pariah state, the symbol of any evil in the world. The Jews, “celebrated” as victims on the Remembrance Day, become the day after the Israeli “executioners”.

The accusations addressed against the Jewish professors in the neo-Nazi site are eloquent.

The recent positions of the Catholic Church, which respond in no way to the ideas and to the feelings of the Catholics, and, above all, the last declarations of Pope Benedict XVI, his reactionary initiatives (for instance the one to restore the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews) do not help the dialogged at all.

On the contrary, they have contributed, and still contribute, to creatin rg a climate of a useless and harmful hostility and contraposition.

It is not even a chance that the ones to be addressed are university professors – in particular those from Università di Roma "Sapienza." The aggression towards intellectuals is the first sign of the savagery.

We ask your solidarity. A word, a gesture could be important. We have learned it from history. I send you this letter to let you know so that you can inform friends and colleagues.

Monday, February 11, 2008

This is scary: A posting on the Internet of 150 Jewish professors in Itlay with addresses

A blogger in Italy posted a list of 150 Jewish professors together with their addresses. After numerous protests it was removed. It may have been the work of one or a couple of kooks. But getting 150 names and addresses.... that's not a friendly act.

The bell tolls once again: Tom Lantos, Member of House of Representatives and Holocaust Survivor, is dead

Tom Lantos the only Holocaust survivor to serve in the US Congress died today at the age of 80. We traveled together to the commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz in January 2005. He was a remarkable man who, among other things, helped push the Armenian genocide resolution through the House of Representatives. He will be greatly missed.

Here is the Washington Post obit.

My favorite Lantos moment was when he told YAHOO executives that "morally you are pygmies"
for having acceded to Chinese demands that they identify certain YAHOO account holders who were engaged in what the Chinese government considered seditious activities.

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Ask not for whom the bell tolls: The death of Charles Fernley Fawcett

You probably read the title of this post and wondered "Charles Fernley Fawcett? Who's that? And why the rather melodramatic heading of 'for whom the bell tolls'?"

Charles Fernley Fawcett worked with Varian Fry [another too little known name] after the fall of France in 1940 to get desperate refugees out of the country. Many made their way to the United States where, in addition to finding refuge, they changed the face of American and, ultimately, all of Western culture.

Among the people saved by Fry with Fawcett's help were
Marc Chagall, Max Ernst, Jacques Lipchitz, Heinrich Mann, Franz Werfel, Alma Mahler Werfel, André Breton, Victor Serge, André Masson, Lion Feuchtwanger, Konrad Heiden, Hannah Arendt.

For more on Fawcett you can go to the page the Varian Fry Institute. You will also learn there about the forthcoming documentary by Pierre Sauvage who did the compelling documentary [a must see] on Le Chambon, Weapons of the Spirit.

Often this blog devotes space to characters who do no good and who do much bad. It's nice to devote space, even at this sad moment, to someone who did so much good.

When he is buried in London the bells will be tolling for all of us, given how he risked his life to do good. May his memory be for a blessing.

Saturday, February 9, 2008

[More on politics]: MSNBC Reporter despicable attack on Chelsea [yes Chelsea] Clinton

According to today's NYTimes, a MSNBC reporter David Shuster has been suspended for saying that Chelsea Clinton had been "pimped out" to her mother's campaign when she had been used to make phone calls on her behalf. [I put Shuster's name in bold because I hope -- but don't believe -- that this incident will follow him around for the rest of his professional days.]

This comes after Chris Matthews, of the same network, said that Senator Clinton's career was only made possible by her husband's philandering.

To use the term "pimped out" suggests that the media has gotten the message that sexist comments when it comes to Clinton related matters are OK. Shuster got suspended. He should have been fired. Anyone who can say such a thing shows a decided lack of judgment. I would not want him on my team.

This incident echoes Stanley Fish's comments on the campaign which I discussed in the previous post. Criticizing Chelsea Clinton in the most misogynist way possible for working on behalf of her mother is OK. But other nominee's children get a free pass. No one criticized Mitt Romney's sons for working on their dad's behalf, [until their father justified the fact that none of them were in the armed forces by saying that they were serving their country by working on his campaign. ]

Michele Obama tells the AP, when they asked if she would support Clinton if she got the nomination, that she "would have to think about it." No one -- except some bloggers -- says a word. Imagine if Bill Clinton had said that about Obama.... All hell would have broken out.

Oh yes Shuster issued a statement apologizing for his sexist comments. It is blatantly transparent that he doesn't believe it. If he did, he never would have said such a thing to begin with. Here's his statement:
“All Americans should be proud of Chelsea Clinton, and I’m particularly sorry that my language diminished the regard and respect she has earned from all of us and the respect her parents have earned in how they raised her.”
I apologize for this second digression into politics but the irrationality and unfairness of these attacks [and I am not talking about criticizing her policies, her record, or anything else of substance] so remind me of prejudicial attacks, including -- but not limited of course to -- those on Israel and on Jews.

Saul Friedmander's The Years of Extermination: a true magnum opus

I have previously mentioned Saul Friedmander's latest book The Years of Extermination. It appeared in English last May [it appeared in a German edition late in 2006]. I have recently returned to it in anticipation of a class I will be teaching. Looking at it again convinces me that I should say more about it.

It is overpowering. It is an all encompassing work of history that is not afraid of touching the reader. It is never overstated. In fact its strength comes from its understatement.

Friedlander also demonstrates how synthesis, in the hands of a brilliant historian, can be art. He cites the work of numerous other historians but does so in a way that gives added insight and depth to their works. On occasion, simply by adding a sentence of his own, he gives important context to what they have already done.

His use of memoirs, letters, and personal stories is also masterful.

For Prof. Dan Diner's fine review of this work click here.

Friday, February 8, 2008

Jan Gross' Fear: excellent summary and analysis of Polish reactions to Gross' book

An excellent summary of the issues ignited by the publication of Jan Gross' book, Fear, about which I have blogged and which I reviewed, has appeared in the Frankfurter Rundschau on January 18, 2008. It can be read here in English.

Here is my review from Publishers Weekly which appeared when the hardback was published. I have commented on this blog that I may have overstated the case a bit, in condemning Poland as a "nation" in this review:
Starred Review. [Signature]Reviewed by Deborah E. Lipstadt

Rarely does a small book force a country to confront some of the more sordid aspects of its history. Jan T. Gross's Neighbors did precisely that. Gross exposed how in 1941 half the Polish inhabitants of the town of Jedwabne brutally clubbed, burned and dismembered the town's 1,600 Jews, killing all but seven.

The book was greeted with a terrible outcry in Poland. A government commission determined that not only did Gross get the story right but that many other cities had done precisely the same thing.

Now Gross has written Fear, an even more substantial study of postwar Polish anti-Semitism. This book tells a wartime horror story that should force Poles to confront an untold—and profoundly terrifying—aspect of their history. Fear relates, in compelling detail, how Poles from virtually all segments of society persecuted the poor, emaciated and traumatized Holocaust survivors.

Those who did not actually participate in the persecution, e.g., Church leaders and Communist officials, refused to use their influence to stop the pogroms, massacres and plundering of the Jews. The Communists used the anti-Semitism to consolidate their rule. Church leaders justified the blood libel charges.

Even Polish historians have either ignored or tried to justify this anti-Semitism. Gross builds a meticulous case. He argues that this postwar persecution is "a smoking gun," which proves that during the war Poles not only acquiesced but, in many cases, actively assisted the Nazis in their persecution of the Jews. Had they been appalled by Germany's policies toward the Jews or tried to help the victims, Poles could never have engaged in such virulent anti-Semitism in the postwar period.

Gross notes that when the Germans were trying to put down the Warsaw ghetto uprising, Poles—including children—not only cheered as Jewish snipers were spotted and killed but gleefully showed the Germans where Jews were hiding. Those Poles who helped Jews were often persecuted or even killed by their neighbors.

I am troubled by references to "Polish death camps." They were not Polish death camps but camps the Germans placed in Poland. I have taken even stronger issue with the opinion voiced by many Jews that the "Poles were as bad as—and maybe worse than—the Germans."

I argue that while there was a strong tradition of anti-Semitism in Poland, Poles never tried to murder Jews in a systematic fashion.

After reading Fear, the next time I hear someone say the Poles were as bad as the Germans, I will probably still challenge that charge —after all the damage wrought by the Germans cannot be compared to what the Poles did—but my challenge will be far less forceful. I may even keep silent.

Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Stanley Fish nails it: "Hillary hatred" is just like antisemitism

I have, by and large, kept this blog free of political matters. [I did blog about Ron Paul's antisemitism and racism.] The past few weeks I have been marveling [depressingly so] about the attacks on Hillary Clinton.

They ranged from comments about her dress, ankles, laugh, and singing ability. She's too liberal. She's too much of a hawk. She cries in public. She doesn't show emotions.

Even the noted and well-respected [deservedly so] commentator, David Gergen, spent time talking about the "shrillness" of her voice.

When I wondered has ANYONE talked about a male candidate's dress, voice, laugh or any other personal characteristic?

Then there were the comments that she is "too political." Well how, I wondered, could one get to this point in American political life without being "political"? Do you really think Barack Obama could be running for President after just arriving in the senate were he not a savvy politician?

Then this morning I read Stanley Fish's New York Times blog about Hillary hatred. As I read I rejoiced. He articulated exactly what I had been feeling for these past weeks.

He nails it in the final paragraph when he notes that the attacks on her are just like antisemitism, they are irrational in the extreme. That does not mean you can't criticize her. Of course you can. It's the contradictory nature of the attacks which are striking and which illustrate they have nothing to do with reality.

Antisemitism is equally contradictory in nature [Jews are leftists, Jews are capitalists; Jews are pushy and work themselves into places they don't belong, Jews stick together and don't mix with others...and so on and so forth].

As I have said here before antisemitism and, for that matter, racism are prejudices. The etymology of the word tells it all: pre-judge, i.e. don't confuse me with the facts I have already made up my mind.

And so it is with antisemitism, racism, sexism, and, now, Hillary-ism.

All You Need Is Hate

Stanley Fish
February 3, 2008

I have been thinking about writing this column for some time, but I have hesitated because of a fear that it would advance the agenda that is its target. That is the agenda of Hillary Clinton-hating.

Its existence is hardly news — it is routinely referred to by commentators on the present campaign and it has been documented in essays and books — but the details of it can still startle when you encounter them up close. In the January issue of GQ, Jason Horowitz described the world of Hillary haters, many of whom he has interviewed. Horowitz finds that the hostile characterizations of Clinton do not add up to a coherent account of her hatefulness. She is vilified for being a feminist and for not being one, for being an extreme leftist and for being a “warmongering hawk,” for being godless and for being “frighteningly fundamentalist,” for being the victim of her husband’s peccadilloes and for enabling them. “She is,” Horowitz concludes, “an empty vessel into which [her detractors] can pour everything they detest.” (In this she is the counterpart of George W. Bush, who serves much the same function for many liberals.)

This is not to say that there are no rational, well-considered reasons for opposing Clinton’s candidacy. You may dislike her policies (which she has not been reluctant to explain in great detail). You may not be able to get past her vote to authorize the Iraq war. You may think her personality unsuited to the tasks of inspiring and uniting the American people. You may believe that if this is truly a change election, she is not the one to bring about real change.

But the people and groups Horowitz surveys have brought criticism of Clinton to what sportswriters call “the next level,” in this case to the level of personal vituperation unconnected to, and often unconcerned with, the facts. These people are obsessed with things like her hair styles, the “strangeness” of her eyes — “Analysis of Clinton’s eyes is a favorite motif among her most rabid adversaries” — and they retail and recycle items from what Horowitz calls “The Crazy Files”: she’s Osama bin Laden’s candidate; she kills cats; she’s a witch (this is not meant metaphorically).

But this list, however loony-tunes it may be, does not begin to touch the craziness of the hardcore members of this cult. Back in November, I wrote a column on Clinton’s response to a question about giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. My reward was to pick up an e-mail pal who has to date sent me 24 lengthy documents culled from what he calls his “Hillary File.” If you take that file on faith, Hillary Clinton is a murderer, a burglar, a destroyer of property, a blackmailer, a psychological rapist, a white-collar criminal, an adulteress, a blasphemer, a liar, the proprietor of a secret police, a predatory lender, a misogynist, a witness tamperer, a street criminal, a criminal intimidator, a harasser and a sociopath. These accusations are “supported” by innuendo, tortured logic, strained conclusions and photographs that are declared to tell their own story, but don’t.

Compared to this, the Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry was a model of objectivity. When the heading of a section of the “Hillary File” reads “Have the Clintons ever murdered anyone?” — and it turns out to be a rhetorical question like “Is the Pope Catholic?” — you know that you’ve entered cuckooland.

Horowitz warns that as the campaign heats up, this “type of discourse will likely not stay on the fringes for long,” and he predicts that some of it will be made use of by Republican operatives. But he is behind the curve, for the spirit informing it has already made its way into mainstream media. Respected political commentators devote precious network time to deep analyses of her laugh. Everyone blames her for what her husband does or for what he doesn’t do. (This is what the compound “Billary” is all about.) If she answers questions aggressively, she is shrill. If she moderates her tone, she’s just play-acting. If she cries, she’s faking. If she doesn’t, she’s too masculine. If she dresses conservatively, she’s dowdy. If she doesn’t, she’s inappropriately provocative.

None of those who say and write these things is an official Hillary Clinton-hater (some profess to like and admire her), but they are surely doing the group’s work.

One almost prefers an up-front hater (although he tells Horowitz that he doesn’t like the word) like Dick Morris, who writes in a recent New York Post op-ed of the Clintons’ “reprehensible politics of personal destruction” (does he think he’s throwing bouquets?), and accuses them of invading the privacy of opponents, of blackmailing and threatening women, and of “whatever slimy tactics they felt they needed.” Morris calls Harold Ickes, a Clinton aide, a “hit man” for the president, and he calls the president “Hillary’s hit man.”

This is exactly the language of the most vicious anti-Hillary Web sites, and here it is baptized by its appearance in a major newspaper.

Horowitz observes that there is an “inexhaustible fertile market of Clinton hostility,” but that “the search for a unifying theory of what drives Hillary’s most fanatical opponents is a futile one.” The reason is that nothing drives it; it is that most sought-after thing, a self-replenishing, perpetual-energy machine.

The closest analogy is to anti-Semitism. But before you hit the comment button, I don’t mean that the two are alike either in their significance or in the damage they do. It’s just that they both feed on air and flourish independently of anything external to their obsessions. Anti-Semitism doesn’t need Jews and anti-Hillaryism doesn’t need Hillary, except as a figment of its collective imagination. However this campaign turns out, Hillary-hating, like rock ‘n’ roll, is here to stay.

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Brits believe Churchill a myth and Sherlock Holmes is real

According to a poll conducted in Britain, close to a quarter of Brits think Churchill was a myth but over 50% of them think Sherlock Holmes was real. I have no idea how the poll was conducted or if it is really reliable. It does make one pause.

Iranian TV Show on Holocaust [cont.]

I have blogged about this, but for those who want to read more here is a link to a review which appeared in the LA Jewish Journal about the Iranian TV show which supposedly was a response to Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Bad Taste from the Netherlands


Boomerang, a merchant in the Netherlands, has coupled Anne Frank's image with a kaffiah, the Arab headdress which has become a symbol of international terrorism. It's really disgusting.

Thanks to Little Green Footballs for finding this.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

A more critical view of the Iranian TV series on the Holocaust: Not so much to cheer about

Below is a review of the Iranian TV series which created a stir because it dealt with the Holocaust without denying it. [How low we have sunk when a state-run TV production is praised for acknowledging the Holocaust.] The review appeared in Tel Aviv University's Iranian Pulse, which contains updates and annalysis of Iranian affairs.

For those who don't want to work their way through the whole thing here is the author's key finding:

Although Western media outlets (such as BBC, Wall Street Journal, Der Spiegel) have lauded the series for its admission that the Holocaust took place, and interpret it as a sympathetic reversal in the Iranian attitude towards Jews, Zero Degree Turn is nevertheless laden with problematic messages regarding Jews. The series purports to reflect the events leading up to World War II, yet it is fraught with anachronistic discrepancies, and blatantly falsifies the historical realities of the era.

This is demonstrated, inter alia, by the false assertion that Zionists and Nazis collaborated in order to provoke Jewish emigration. Also, the series fails to address European anti-Semitism and the rise of the Zionist Movement; it is as if Zionism emerged in a vacuum. While Iranian state TV finally draws a distinction between Jews and Zionists, the series likens Zionism to Nazism by placing them on the same immoral plane—unmistakably an intentional message of the series.


No. 18 January 10, 2008

"A ZERO DEGREE TURN" IN POLICY: IRANIAN STATE-RUN TV PRODUCTION ON THE HOLOCAUST

Rachel Kantz and Miriam Nissimov*

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad captured the world’s attention with his incendiary attacks against Israel and with his Holocaust denial. He shored up his rhetoric by sponsoring a Holocaust cartoon contest in 2006, encouraging a plethora of pseudoacademic inquiries into the genocide, and hosting prominent Holocaust deniers for what the regime claimed was a conference convened in order to check the veracity of historical claims regarding the Holocaust (December 2006).

If Ahmadinejad perpetuates the regime’s traditional attempts to undermine Israel’s right to exist by denying and/or trivializing the Holocaust, then why has Iranian state-run television launched Zero Degree Turn, a high-budget series which is ostensibly sympathetic to the fate of European Jewry during World War II?

Although Ayatollah Khomeini decisively reversed the Mohammad Reza Shah’s pro-Israel policy, he and his cohorts claimed to differentiate between Judaism and Zionism or Jews and Zionists. This, however, has proven to be a formidable task for the revolutionary regime, as Ayatollah Khomeini himself publicly breached the distinction, and state-run publications incessantly blur the two notions.

One such recent example, is the speech commemorating Jerusalem Day by former president and current Head of the Assembly of Experts, `Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani held in October 2007.

Rafsanjani stated that the Nazis’ “first objective was to free Europe from the evils of Zionism,” and that this was justifiable because “the Zionists, as a powerful faction, used to engage in many subversive activities in Europe, thanks to their large assets and propaganda empire.” He asserted that “one of the reasons that the Jews of that era received” the treatment they did was due to prevailing Jewish attitudes. As a result, “the Europeans intended to force the Zionists to leave Europe, because they were always a nuisance for European governments” (BBC Monitoring, October 5, 2007).

While many Iranian leaders blur the distinction between Jews and Zionists, Zero Degree Turn, written and directed by Hassan Fathi, not only conceptualizes the two as distinct and separate communities, but also portrays them in acute conflict with each other. A dominant theme of the series involves a fierce struggle between Jews and Zionists, both in Paris and Iran. In Iran, this struggle reaches its climax when the local Zionist “gang” murders the community’s rabbi, an ardent opponent of the group’s activities, thereby encouraging Jewish immigration to Palestine.

In Paris, a romance develops between Sarah Stark, a young Jewish student, and Habib Parsa, a Muslim Iranian and son of a diplomat. This story line is loosely based on a true story of heroism in which 'Abdul Hossein Sardari, the Iranian chargé d’affaires saved over a thousand European Jews by forging passports and securing them refuge in Iran. The theme of struggle between Judaism and Zionism manifests itself in a conflict between Sarah’s two uncles, ostensibly the prototypes of “Jew” and “Zionist.”

As such, one uncle, Shmuel Weiss, is portrayed as an honest and righteous intellectual who furiously argues with her other uncle, Theodore Stark, a deceptive Zionist, not coincidentally named after Theodore Herzl, the founding father of the Zionist movement. In a dispute with Stark, Weiss states: “following the transgression of the ancients, the faithful suffered long years of exile until they found security and tranquility in their various places, and now you come and encourage the Jewish people to end their exile? No, I’ve enjoyed many great years side by side with my compatriots, the French. It is not decent to abandon them now when they are faced with such an evil threat.”

The differentiation between Judaism and Zionism is accentuated with the addition of a story line “establishing” collusion between Zionist and Nazi forces—a familiar and commonly accepted notion in the Arab world. In order to realize Zionist aspirations, Theodore Stark collaborates with the Nazis and encourages harassment against the Jews in the aim of persuading them to flee Europe.

'Abdollah Shahbazi, the Iranian historian and author who acted as the “scientific” consultant for the series, underscores this claim in his Persian blog: “during World War II, rich Jewish families were party to a secret alliance with Hitler’s Germany,” and “played an important role in building Hitler’s power, [and in] the outbreak of World War II.”

The series’ distinction between Jews and Zionists and its allegation of Zionist-Nazi collusion are nothing new in Iranian public discourse. What is new is the crack in the state’s lack of tolerance for artistic freedom and religious digression regarding social norms in Iran.

This is one of the rare occasions since the Islamic Revolution state TV has invested so much money and effort in programming that contains elements that run counter to the regime’s conception of appropriate social behavior. These include a soap opera-like love story between a secular Muslim and a secular Jew, unveiled Muslim women, famous Iranian Muslim actors and actresses wearing expensive costumes reflecting 1940’s Western attire, and free discussion of life under the Pahlavis. Additionally, Sarah Stark and Habib Parsa’s discussion of respect for each other’s religious views and the need for dialogue between the religions is refreshingly new.

Finally, given the abundance and recent proliferation of anti-Semitic programming, from children’s shows to documentaries, any programming that evokes sympathy for Jews should be seen as an anomaly in the realm of Iranian state-run TV.

Although Western media outlets (such as BBC, Wall Street Journal, Der Spiegel) have lauded the series for its admission that the Holocaust took place, and interpret it as a sympathetic reversal in the Iranian attitude towards Jews, Zero Degree Turn is nevertheless laden with problematic messages regarding Jews. The series purports to reflect the events leading up to World War II, yet it is fraught with anachronistic discrepancies, and blatantly falsifies the historical realities of the era.

This is demonstrated, inter alia, by the false assertion that Zionists and Nazis collaborated in order to provoke Jewish emigration. Also, the series fails to address European anti-Semitism and the rise of the Zionist Movement; it is as if Zionism emerged in a vacuum. While Iranian state TV finally draws a distinction between Jews and Zionists, the series likens Zionism to Nazism by placing them on the same immoral plane—unmistakably an intentional message of the series.

The hard-line Kayhan congratulated the series for conveying this idea: “The ground for [creating] Israel is prepared when Hitler’s army puts pressure on activist Jews. In this sense […] Nazism [is] parallel to Zionism.” (Associated Press, September 16, 2007) Here, Kayhan hits it on the mark: the ultimate goal of the series is to delegitimize the nature of the establishment of Israel, and therefore its right to exist.

A critical viewing of the series reveals that despite the new expressions of artistic freedom, Zero Degree Turn imparts common establishment messages, which are in perfect harmony with Ahmadinejad’s policy of denying the Holocaust in order to undermine Israel’s right to exist. Given that the director has mentioned that the state intends to market the series beyond Iran’s borders, the series should be seen as a sophisticated attempt to showcase the regime’s virulent anti-Israel views abroad.

• Rachel Kantz is a Research Fellow at the Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University.
• Miriam Nissimov is a Research Fellow at the Center for Iranian Studies and a PhD candidate at the Graduate School of Historical Studies at Tel Aviv University.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Ms. Magazine's "stupidity" and prejudice sparks a reaction

There will be a press conference today protesting the outrageous action by Ms. Magazine in rejecting the ad by the American Jewish Congress celebrating the fact that three women have achieved pinnacles of professional success in Israeli government.

Reaction to Jan Gross' Fear

In today's Ha'aretz

Saturday, January 12, 2008

David Irving talk in Liverpool: One newspaper gets it right.... and one wrong

A talk Irving was scheduled to give in Liverpool, England was recently cancelled when the hotel discovered that Irving was one of the speakers. It was scheduled to coincide with the European Holocaust Memorial Day which is on January 27th.

What interest me is not the cancellation but how two different Liverpool newspapers covered the news. The Liverpool Echo article read:
Talk by jailed historian David Irving axed

In contrast, the Liverpool Daily Post's headline read:
Holocaust denier Irving ‘targeted’ Liverpool

[Thanks to Sara Salzman for catching this contrast in headlines.]

Friday, January 11, 2008

Columbia professors going to apologize to Ahmadinejad?

[Edited and links added November 12th]

According to the Tehran Times a group of Columbia professors is going to Tehran to apologize to Ahmadinejad for President Lee Bollinger's comments to him when the Iranian president visited that campus in fall 2007.

[Note: This report has not been officially confirmed and, if it does go, it will not be an official Columbia delegation.]

Maybe, while they are there, they might ask about the young boys who were hung for homosexual activities [maybe that's why Ahmadinejad said there are no homosexuals in Iran they have all been hung...].

They might ask about those professors who have been punished and imprisoned by the government for speaking their mind.

They might also ask about the people who had a hand and a foot amputated because they were convicted of stealing

They might also ask about the woman who was stoned for killing her husband. The woman, age 23, was married at age 15 to a man who apparently abused her.

They might ask about the Amnesty International report that, by mid-October 2007, 250 people have been executed in Iran so far this year – 21 of them on the morning of September 5th alone. This includes children. Iran has been described by human rights organizations as the last executioner of children.

They might ask about the 30 people hung during July and August as part of a suppression of efforts to spread democracy. [One of the reasons we know about the hangings is that they were done publicly. Even Texas doesn't do that.]

They might ask why Dr. Esfandiari, who was held in solitary confinement for 105 days, was arrested in the first place.

My guess is that they won't ask any of these things because they will be too busy groveling and they are more worried about Ahmadinejad's freedom of speech than that of the people who have been persecuted by this regime.

[Maybe Gandhi's grandson will say something about this....except that he's too busy condemning Israel and all Jews for their culture of violence.]

Ms. Magazine suffers from a major attack of the stupids [if not worse than that]

Apparently Ms Magazine declined to accept an ad from the American Jewish Congress which featured three Israeli women who have reached the highest levels of success in their country.

The New York Sun reports that the advertisement, which was prepared by the American Jewish Congress, included pictures of three Israeli women who have reached the pinnacle of success in their fields: the president of the Israeli Supreme Court, Dorit Beinisch; Israel's foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, and speaker of the Knesset, Dalia Itzik. The text under the picture read: "This is Israel."

Though Jewish leaders -- correctly -- called this an anti-Israel act, Ms. defended itself by claiming to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that because two of the women photographed belong to the same political party, the advertisement showed favoritism.

Gimme a break.

This is the magazine that opened so many women's eyes to the subtle -- and not so subtle -- impact of sexism and discrimination against women.

For it to behave in this fashion is beneath contempt. I wish I subscribed to MS. so I could cancel my subscription.

An antisemitic column by Ghandi's grandson

As readers of this blog know, I do not label people or writings as antisemitic unless they are blatnatly so. Well Gandhi's grandson has written a column for the Washington Post which is clearly so.

Arun Gandhi is the fifth grandson of “Mahatma” Gandhi and is president and co-founder of the M. K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence.

He begins by describing Jews as being
"locked into the holocaust experience-- a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed. It is a very good example of a community can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends."
If his people had lost one out of every three members of its community would he suggest that they "shed" this experience? Then he goes on to posit that
"The holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into doing something dreadful."
An individual? Seems to me that history shows that a whole lot more than one person was involved in making this happen.

He then proclaims that the "Jewish identity in the future appears bleak" because Jews are "anchored to the past" and believe that their "survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs."

He goes on to describe Israel and its policies as "a snake pit -- with many deadly snakes in it" He asks "Would it not be better to befriend those who hate you? Can you not reach out and share your technological advancement with your neighbors and build a relationship?"

Finally he declares that "we have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity."

This reeks of antisemitism. Jewish identity based on violence? Not a word about suicide bombers? Hamas? Rockets from Gaza? Withdrawal from Gaza?

My question is how did the editors of the Washington Post decide to publish this? Couldn't they have found something more subtle? Didn't they realize that this piece was too heavy handed? I am really disappointed in them.

[In case you have any doubt that past par should be read with a heavy dose of sarcasm.]

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Ron Paul a race baiter....

I am sitting here watching the New Hampshire returns and I see a number of young people enthusiastically waving Ron Paul signs. Well, as I have been blogging over the past ten days or so, the guy should be looked at more carefully.

Up until now I have been careful not to paint Paul as a too bad a guy but have pointed at the people he attracts to him. I wondered why he did not reject them.

Well now we have the answer. Seems that Ron Paul shares their racist and antisemitic views. [We don't know about his Holocaust denial.]

A reporter at the New Republic, James Kirchick, has done the legwork and discovered that Ron Paul has over the years expressed highly racist views, has attacked gays, and he also showed an "obsession" with Jews and Israel... not in a positive way.

Here are some quotes:
In December 1989 in his Investment Letter he predicted that in the 1990s "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'"

In November 1990, an item in his newsletter advised readers, "If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it." In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo." "

"In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter's author--presumably Paul--wrote, "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming." That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which "blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot."

Regarding gays: He complained about President George H.W. Bush's decision to sign a hate crimes bill and invite "the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony," adding, "I miss the closet."

Regarding the World Trade Center bombing: His newsletter said, "Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little."
He has not done well in the campaign thus far.... but remember how much money he has raised.... and how he has swept some people off their feet.

Pretty scary.

Details on Fred Leuchter and why he should not be trusted with anything... especially lethal injections

[January 9th: Check out the previous post to see Leuchter and his electric chair. ]

Some people have asked for more background on Leuchter. Here are some sources:

1. From www.hdot.org, the website on my trial, take a look at http://www.hdot.org/learning/myth-fact/leuchter//body/1037?keyword=Leuchter

2. For how the Leuchter material played out in court, take a look at History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier.

3. You might also want to see what the judge had to say about Leuchter.

4. In Denying the Holocaust [p. 172], I cited the following information about Leuchter:

According to an affidavit by Dr. Edward A. Brunner, chair of the Department of Anesthesia at Northwestern University Medical School, "Leuchter's lethal injection system caused excruciating pain but rendered victims incapable of screaming to communicate their distress."


5. Of course there is both Robert Jan van Pelt's, The Case for Auschwitz, a majesterial work, which is essentially his report for my trial [you can also find it at hdot.org ] and Shelly Shapiro's small but classic work, Truth Prevails, which was the first work to address the multiple flaws, misstatement of facts, and other inventions in the "Leuchter Report."

6. And finally there is Erroll Morris' Mr. Death.

Monday, January 7, 2008

Holocaust Denier and the Death Penalty Case before Supreme Court


Today the Supreme Court heard Baze v. Rees, a case arguing that the drug cocktail used in lethal injections constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

So what does that have to do with this blog?

Turns out that the "cocktail" was invented by one Fred Leuchter who, posing as an engineer, wrote the bogus report on the non-existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz and Maidanek.

This guy has an electric chair in his basement -- I assume it's non-operative -- and poses in it on occasion. [That's him in his chair above. You can also see these scenes in Erroll Morris' film, Mr. Death.]

However you might feel about the death penalty, I doubt that Fred Leuchter should be depended on to invent anything....

Thursday, January 3, 2008

Poland and the Holocaust: Jan Gross' book, Fear, about to appear in Polish translation.

"This may be the biggest event of the year." So said a reporter from Rzeczpospolita, one of Poland's leading dailies, when he called to interview me this afternoon.

Fear, which examines some -- many -- Poles' treatment of Jews during and immediately after the Holocaust. He has found some horrifying evidence. It is unclear just how widespread this antisemitic behavior was, but, according to Gross, it was not unique to Jedvabne [Yed-vab-nia] the town in which the Jewish residents were murdered in the period right before the entry of the Germans into the town. Gross wrote about that town in Neighbors.

The book strikes at the Polish self-image of the nation as a "victim." I reviewed the book in Publisher's Weekly [the review is posted on Amazon] and then commented on it subsequently in previous posts.

More on this as it evolves. It will be a striking example of how history is not confined to the past. In fact it's not even over.

Tuesday, January 1, 2008

Ron Paul on Isolationism

I had no intention of devoting so much time -- or any at all -- to Ron Paul but this guy says things and does things which almost demand comment.

Last month, The Washington Post reported, in an article entitled A History Lesson, that Ron Paul had responded to criticism of him by John McCain. McCain had compared Paul's opposition to the Iraqi war to the 1930s appeasement movement in the US. [I don't agree with McCain's comments. But, as you will see, that is beside the point.]

The appeasement movement, as many readers clearly know, was vigorously opposed to any action against Nazi Germany. While it may have had many well-meaning members in its ranks, it also had many people who were sympathetic to Nazis Germany and who, while they may not have approved of all its policies, were clearly enthralled by much of what it was doing [and vehemently opposed to FDR's policies]. Think Charles Lindbergh and Ambassador Joseph Kennedy.

In response to McCain's criticism Paul said the senator was"confused historically." He went on to tell the Washington Post:
"People in the 1930s who didn't want war didn't cause World War II. I think Hitler caused the war, not the Americans who argued for a pro-American foreign policy...."
To say the isolationists were arguing for a pro-American foreign policy is to also say that those who wanted vigorous action against Nazi Germany wanted an anti-American policy.

Paul may not be an historian and may not be a man of nuance but when you begin to put all these things together, you get a disturbing picture of a man who had won the hearts and opened the pockets of a surprisingly large number of Americans.

[The Washington Post article was also posted on the official Ron Paul for President site which is where Adam Holland, who alerted me to this, apparently first saw it.

Monday, December 31, 2007

"Holocaust denial on the increase in 2007": David Wyman Institute

According to the David Wyman Institute, Holoaust denial increased markedly in 2007. In its report it links this directly to the release of David Irving from jail. I have not yet read the actual report only an article in the Jerusalem Post so I can't comment in any depth.

Sunday, December 30, 2007

Ron Paul wins the support of Holocaust denier, Hutton Gibson

[Edited 11:35 a.m.]

Prominently featured on a support Ron Paul site is a ringing endorsement from Hutton Gibson, the avowed Holocaust denier whose son, Mel, has tried to whitewash his father's denial.

Ron Paul cannot control who supports him but he can disavow their support. Why won't he do that? And more importantly, why are all these folks so enamored of him?

[Thanks to David Gorski for bringing this factoid to my attention.]

[Note: It has just been pointed out to me that this is NOT an official Ron Paul site but a site disguised to look like one. We don't know who posted this because the owner of the site is hiding behind domainsbyproxy.com. Thanks Michael P. Stein for pointing this out.]

Friday, December 28, 2007

Ron Paul and his neo-Nazi supporters

Since my previous post I have been hearing an increasing buzz about Ron Paul. [Maybe I am just listening for it now...]

People -- including a number of people who describe themselves as liberals -- who are looking for an independent candidate seem to be intrigued by him. My observation is, of course, highly UNscientific. But the amount of money Paul has collected on the Internet is not.

This has prompted me to poke around and look at Paul more closely. Given my previous post on Paul, I was expecting to find some shady characters supporting him.

But I must admit to being shocked -- and I don't shock easily -- at the way in which a strange conglomerate of White supremacists, neo-Nazis, 9/11 conspiracists, etc. have embraced him.

Take a look at this site. If you scroll down you will see lots of photos of these folks with Ron Paul including one with Don Black and his son. Don Black, according to Little Green Footballs, is the owner of the neo-Nazi Stormfront site.

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul and the neo-Nazis

The Internet has been buzzing the past few days -- if not more so -- with charges that there are connections between Ron Paul and a hodgepodge of neo-Nazis, White supremacists, Holocaust deniers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the like. Some of them have blogged about their supposed meetings.

The charges and counter charges -- which are enough to make your head swim -- first surfaced in mid-November. They have resurfaced again.

One thing, however, seems pretty certain: Paul's adamant refusal to decline their support, denounce their views, or return the funds they have given him.

And this man raised $6m in one day last week on the Internet.

Friday, December 21, 2007

Libel Tourism: N.Y. Court rules in Ehrenfeld case: It won't hear the case.. now.

The N.Y. Appeals Court has ruled in the Ehrenfeld case. There are many disturbing aspects to this case, as my colleague Michael Broyde and I wrote in our New York Times oped.

[Some background: In her book Ehrenfeld charged Saudi billionaire Mahfouz with funding terrorism. She did not publish the book in the UK. Nonetheless, Mahfouz's lawyers bought the book over Amazon UK and then went to the UK court and sued her for libel. The case coined the term "Libel Tourism." She did not contest the Saudi billionaire's charges against her and therefore lost by default. ]

She tried to counter sue Mahfouz in the United States. She argued that, the fact that Mahfouz might try to collect what he won in the UK judgment against her, gave the N.Y. court jurisdiction and it should prevent that from happening.

The N.Y. Appeals Court ruled that New York courts have no jurisdiction to hear her counter suit because he has not yet tried to collect the funds awarded him by the UK court.

Ehrenfeld's lawyers had argued that just the threat that Mahfouz would try to collect the money gave American courts jurisdiction.

What the N.Y. court said was that she can't sue now. The court seems to be saying that, should, however, Mahfouz come banging on her door to collect the money, she can then go to the N.Y. court and ask them to hear the case.

Since the ruling was announced yesterday I have received a number of despondent emails. They have expressed the sentiment that this is an awful defeat for Ehrenfeld, as well as all others who would expose Saudi funding of terrorism and try to expose extremism.

I too wish the ruling had gone otherwise but lawyers had warned me that the court would probably rule this way.

Part of the problem is that Ehrenfeld, by choosing not to contest Mahfouz's assault on her in the UK court, has a judgment against her.

I am convinced -- I may be wrong -- that Mahfouz won't come after Ehrenfeld for the money. To do so he might look like a vicious man trying to strip an American researcher and writer of her livelihood. Moreover, if she then goes to the American courts and counter sues, he might lose.

However, if he leaves things as they are now it is a win/win for him.
* He won by default in the UK court
* He has a judgment against Ehrenfeld [even though she never published in the UK]
* He leaves her hanging, not knowing if he is coming to collect "his" money while he avoids looking like an ogre.
* Above all, he avoids the risk that she will counter sue and win in an American court.

I know that Ehrenfeld did not contest these charges in the UK on principle. [It is absurd that a book that was not published in the UK can be the cause of a libel suit there.] However, because of the nature of UK libel laws, it let Mahfouz have his win [even if by default]

This made him the winner. And that is how he will probably choose to remain.

Fred Töben, Australian Holocaust Denier, tries to post on this blog


I feel no need to post on this blog comments sent to me by deniers. I long ago determined that this blog would not be a place for deniers -- through the subterfuge of supposed comments -- to wage their battles against historical accuracy.

Today I received a comment from Fred Töben, the noted Australian Holocaust denier.

[Töben, on right, with Ahmadinejad at Iran conference. Note David Duke over Ahmadinejad's shoulder]

I am posting it here because it demonstrates how deniers have turned on David Irving, even though for all intents and purposes, he continues to deny.

Deniers seem to be eating their young... and their old.

Toben's comment was prompted by my post "David Irving goes to Spain and to the BBC...":

David Irving has always believed in limited gassings and hence he is a Holocaust believer. I refuse to believe, without physical proof, in the systematic extermination of six million European Jews in homicidal gas chambers.

The Holocaust believers have never proven their case but instead use legal means to silence those who refuse to believe in the Jewish Holocaust Shoah.

Fredrick Töben
Adelaide Institute

Thursday, December 20, 2007

David Irving goes to Spain and to the BBC...

This week's Jewish Chronicle reports that Irving went to Spain and gave a denial speech.

There is nothing noteworthy about this article except that he was supposed to appear on a BBC World programme. What are the people at the BBC thinking or NOT thinking??? [See the section highlighted below.]

Spanish police study Irving speech
21/12/2007
*By Bernard Josephs and Dana Gloger*
Spanish police were this week examining a recording of a speech by revisionist historian David Irving, condemned by a British High Court judge as a Holocaust denier, after the Jewish community failed to have him banned from speaking in Barcelona.

Under Spanish law, justifying genocide or inciting racism and xenophobia can carry a sentence of up to three years. Police were authorised by a judge to examine Irving’s words to see if he had broken the law in his speech at a bookshop last Saturday.

According to agency reports, he told his audience of about 20 that there was no proof that Hitler was aware of the Holocaust. But, he said, there was no doubt that the Nazis killed “two or three million” Jews.

During his speech, about 100 people protested outside the bookshop which was guarded by police.

Dahliah Levinsohn, secretary of the Federation of Jewish communities in Spain, said: “The Federation asked the High Court to cancel Irving’s talk, as we thought there could be acts of incitement to racism and antisemitism.

“Although it [the court] did not cancel the conference, Catalan police were present and the court issued them with an official order to enter and record the talk.

“He [Irving] was very careful not to negate the Holocaust, precisely because the Catalan police were there. Now the police will analyse the talk and see if something comes up.” In 2006 Irving was sentenced by an Austrian court to three years in prison for Holocaust denial but was released after serving one-third of his sentence.

He was due this week is to take part in a BBC World Service programme.
He was to be among “eight gagged individuals — people banned from speaking because of their beliefs or work”, said a BBC spokesperson.

Irving has threatened to sue the /JC/ if it calls him an “active Holocaust denier”.

Monday, December 17, 2007

Benjamin Franklin on the Jews: Classic [and highly mythical] antisemitism from a Syrian cleric:

[Links corrected 12/18/07]
According to MEMRI, Syrian Cleric Muhammad Sa'id Ramadhan Al-Bouti said on Al Jazeera that Benjamin Franklin had called upon Americans to Deport Jews from the U.S.

Simply put: this is completely false. No proof of this statement has been found in anything Franklin said. In addition, it contains language that was not used in Franklin's times, e.g. homeland. Moreover, the statement never surfaced before the 1930s. And it comes from a book which no one has ever seen.

If you need more evidence that this a hoax and an antisemitic canard, the ADL has done a good analysis of the history of this fraudulent claim. Significantly, this ADL piece quotes a number of leading Franklin scholars who debunk this nasty effort

Now we have to ask how this cleric got this information? It only surfaces on antisemitic and White Supremacist websites. I guess we know where he and his cohort are rummaging.

His use of this really gives one hope.....

Testimony from a Sonderkommando who worked in gas chambers in Auschwitz

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=aaIgmTTYw4oU&refer=home

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Using History on Trial to connect Holocaust denial and 9/11 conspiracy theorists

A website devoted to debunking 9/11 conspiracies addresses the connections between such conspiracy theorists and my own work on Holocaust deniers, particularly as addressed in my book, History on Trial.

History on Trial: Reflections on my book from Germany

There are some interesting comments on my work, the trial, and on History on Trial at http://diebesteallerzeiten.de/blog/category/books/

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

An unrepentant Nazi freely cavorts in Spain and elsewhere: Why is no one charging him?

Instead of spending time on Holocaust deniers, here is someone who European governments should pursue with vigor.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Irving v. Lipstadt: The Saga Continues

This week's Jewish Chronicle contains a story about David Irving's claims that he is planning to serve me with legal papers when I was in London last week.

On his website he has suggested in the past that I sneak into London to avoid him. Given that my speeches have been well publicized -- enough for 900 people to attend -- this is clearly an imaginary claim. No surprise here.

David Irving v Deborah Lipstadt, Part 2
By By Dana Gloger
HOLOCAUST-denier David Irving claims he is preparing to serve court papers on the American historian he unsuccessfully sued for libel in London’s High Court eight years ago.

This week, the JC learned that the discredited historian, who last year served part of a three-year sentence in an Austrian jail for breaching the country’s Holocaust-denial laws, emailed Deborah Lipstadt informing her he intended to institute unspecified court proceedings against her.

He told the JC that this could only be done while she was within the jurisdiction of the High Court.

When Irving found out that Prof Lipstadt would be in the UK for a series of talks, he got in touch with her.

In an email dated November 30, which the JC has seen, Irving, 69, wrote: “Please inform me whether you will be available for service of court proceedings, and make a suitable appointment for this purpose; please also confirm that you will take no steps to prevent court officers from approaching you, and cause no steps to be taken to prevent court officers from approaching you on this occasion.”

In his 2000 libel case, Irving was branded an antisemite by a judge after bringing the suit against Prof Lipstadt for calling him a Holocaust denier.

He would not divulge why he was planning to bring his latest threatened action, but confirmed that they were not related to libel.

“There is something in the air, but I can’t tell you any more. For now it goes back on the shelf, until she is back in the jurisdiction of the British High Court and I can locate her.”

There were rumours on Tuesday night that Irving would try to gatecrash Prof Lipstadt’s talk at Finchley Synagogue. But he said he had not tried to go, as he knew he would not be allowed in.

He added: “[Ms Lipstadt] is no friend of mine. I have many Jewish friends but she is not one of them.”

Although Irving said that Prof Lipstadt had not responded to his email, when the JC spoke to her, she said her solicitors, Mishcon de Reya, had replied on her behalf.

It is understood that an email was sent confirming that anything served would be accepted. Ms Lipstadt said: “His email came as a little bit of a surprise, but he pulls these kinds of things.”

In October, Irving threatened to sue the JC for calling him an active Holocaust denier. He has not carried out this threat.

Monday, December 10, 2007

Sunday, December 2, 2007

Apples over the Fence: A Holocaust story that beggars the imagination

There is a Holocaust story making the rounds on the Internet which is clearly not true. It's about an inmate of a camp [a sub-camp of Buchenwald] who connects with a young girl outside the camp. She throws him an apple everyday over the fence. He tells her one day in May 1945 that she should not throw any more apples because at 10 a.m. the next morning he has appointment to appear at the gas chamber to be killed. This story has so many shortcomings that one hardly knows where to begin.

Let me focus only on the most fundamental one: Buchenwald had no gas chambers. In May 1945 no one was still being gassed. Moreover, Jews were not told ahead of time that they were going to be gassed. The whole idea behind the gassing was surprise and deception.

[There is another version on the Internet that places the camp at Terezin/ Theresienstadt and the author says that they were told to report to a section of the camp the next morning at 10 a.m. and they knew this meant they were to be gassed. But there were no gas chambers in Terezin.]

If you get this email do NOT send it on to other people. Delete it.

Not only do we need to be historically accurate for the simple sake of history. But on top of that, this kind of stuff is fodder for deniers.

There are many amazing stories about the Holocaust. Just the fact that some people managed to survive this hell is amazing in and of itself. We don't need embellished and/or false stories. The truth is far more than enough.

Saturday, December 1, 2007

What happens when rumors are really just lies?

The Washington Post's cartoonist Tom Toles has poked some barbed comments at his paper's treatment of some false rumors, i.e. lies, being spread about Obama.

Toles' cartoon was prompted by how the Post handled a story concerning the false reports afloat that Obama is secretly a Muslim who will take the oath of office on a Koran. Whatever you think of the inexperienced Senator from Illinois, this is completely untrue.

The Washington Post, in writing about it, presented "both sides of the issue" and discussed the rumors [aka lies] without explicitly stating that the story is just false. The Post's Lois Romano's defended the way in which the paper presented the story. Since this discussion has become so heated, Romano said, the Post's
editors decided it was in the readers interest to address it. I have heard people say that they won't support Sen. Obama because they read he doesn't put is hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. He has denied this -- so airing some of this and giving him a chance to deny its accuracy could be viewed as setting the record straight.
This is, as Salon's Glenn Greenwald observes, patently absurd. The Post should have called these rumors what they are: lies. To compound matters the Post gave the story the following headline:
Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him
What the Post should have done, Greenwald notes, is what the New York Times did yesterday in a story on how Giuliani uses statistics about his supposedly stellar mayoral record.
All of these statements are incomplete, exaggerated or just plain wrong . . . .An examination of many of his statements by The New York Times, other news organizations and independent groups have turned up a variety of misstatements, virtually all of which cast Mr. Giuliani or his arguments in a better light.
Why am I blogging about this? Because of the decided parallel to how the media often handles claims by Holocaust deniers. Mercifully, this has been less the case with David Irving's contentions since he lost his attempt to sue me for libel. His claims about the Holocaust were exposed as lies and fabrications.

I wonder however if we will soon see the Washington Post presenting "both sides" of the Holocaust denial argument.

Presenting two sides is a good thing when there are two sides. But one "side" is a complete lie it should unequivocally be treated as such.

The Washington Post failed that test.

Teaching [or Not] the Holocaust in the UK

Esther Solomon, an editor at Ha'aretz, has written about an issue which I have been blogging about for months, the false rumor that the UK [or the University of Kentucky depending on the version of the email you received] has dropped teaching of the Holocaust.